Use of Native American Imagery in Sports

[Ped]

Originally Posted by Cole436

There is no such thing as the "Coast Salish Nation". And there's no chief of it. ####ing terrible reporting.

The article has been updated.

A previous version of this story misidentified Doug Kelly's title. He is Grand Chief of the Stó:lō Tribal Council.

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by Ped

The article has been updated.

I think this is perfectly indicative of how well the media handled this story.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Cole436

There is no such thing as the "Coast Salish Nation". And there's no chief of it. ####ing terrible reporting.

Originally Posted by Ped

The article has been updated.

Sto:lo is in the Upper Fraser Valley.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Cole436

I think the framing of the issue surrounding the Canucks logo by the media a bit disingenuous. Maybe the actual issue is too nuanced for the media. The issue isn't that it's "offensive", but that a corporation is profiting off the image of vulnerable communities without any distribution of the wealth to said community. Even if the communities don't "claim" the art, the logo is overtly evoking indigenous imagery.

Is it appropriate in 2020 for corporations to profit off the likeness of vulnerable groups and say it's "honouring" them? Does "honouring them" help those communities suffering from the clean water crisis? The reserves with infant mortality rates that are on par with developing nations? The systemic poverty affecting indigenous communities? No, it's lip service to make a profit.

I personally believe that the "offensive/not offensive" conversation spurious, and exactly what corporations like the Aquilini group would love us to have instead of the real issue.

I think this is a larger socioeconomic issue than just the Canucks logo.

If that becomes our moral consensus, then I expect sports teams and other corporations will simply stop using real-world cultural imagery in their marketing altogether. It’s not clear to me how that will actually make anyone’s lives better.

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If that becomes our moral consensus, then I expect sports teams and other corporations will simply stop using real-world cultural imagery in their marketing altogether. It’s not clear to me how that will actually make anyone’s lives better.

As I stated in this exact thread almost a decade ago, it's not about ethnic imagery but ethnocentric imagery. When a company is the sole profiteer off products that evoke vulnerable communities, I think there needs to be a serious discussion about the ethics.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Cole436

As I stated in this exact thread almost a decade ago, it's not about ethnic imagery but ethnocentric imagery. When a company is the sole profiteer off products that evoke vulnerable communities, I think there needs to be a serious discussion about the ethics.

I am not sure they really profit from the imagery directly. I would wager their merchandise sales are pretty much 100% because they are a hockey club and people will buy the merchandise regardless of the logo.

Removing the imagery will reduce exposure and audience of the artistic style, which is fine if that is what people want. Salish artists don't need the Canucks promoting anything for them.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Cole436

As I stated in this exact thread almost a decade ago, it's not about ethnic imagery but ethnocentric imagery. When a company is the sole profiteer off products that evoke vulnerable communities, I think there needs to be a serious discussion about the ethics.

But ongoing controversy won’t spark a serious discussion about ethics. It will just make the Canucks drop the orca logo.

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I am not sure they really profit from the imagery directly. I would wager their merchandise sales are pretty much 100% because they are a hockey club and people will buy the merchandise regardless of the logo.

Removing the imagery will reduce exposure and audience of the artistic style, which is fine if that is what people want. Salish artists don't need the Canucks promoting anything for them.

While I agree with you they are profiting off being a hockey team and they will sell product no matter what's on the jersey, the logo they use to market themselves is still evoking indigenous art. Indirectly they are profiting off the appropriation of that art.

I don't even think it's necessary to remove it, but I think there needs to be an update to the terms and conditions of usage of this sort of imagery. Whether it's x% of all sales with this logo go to directly to communities or some form of federal support.

I'm not advocating for the removal of indigenous art, I'm saying we should be holding corporations more accountable for how they use it.

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

But ongoing controversy won’t spark a serious discussion about ethics. It will just make the Canucks drop the orca logo.

Again, it doesn't have to. Which is why the angle this was reported is particularly upsetting. No one, even the indigenous people, want the logo dropped. But there should be a serious discussion about a private, white owned, corporation indirectly profiteering off their culture without any financial compensation.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Cole436

Again, it doesn't have to. Which is why the angle this was reported is particularly upsetting. No one, even the indigenous people, want the logo dropped. But there should be a serious discussion about a private, white owned, corporation indirectly profiteering off their culture without any financial compensation.

Just because art originated from a culture I fail to see how they own any interpretations of it.

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Just because art originated from a culture I fail to see how they own any interpretations of it.

We're not discussing Italian or Irish cultural imagery which has allowed immigrants and their decedents to integrate into Canadian society. We're discussing a group of people that historically were:

- Almost driven to extinction due to European action during colonialization, including intentional spread of disease, displacement and cutting off food supply

- From 1876 until the first world war, they were essentially prisoners on the reserves due to the Indian Act restrictions

- Experienced the Residential School System from 1847 until 1996 where our government attempted and almost successfully committed genocide.



Currently this group of people are:

- Systemically targeted and persecuted by the Canadian Criminal Justice System, being comically over represented in Canadian prisons. They represent only 4% of the total Canadian population yet account for 30% of all federal inmates. When compared to white Canadians, they are disproportionally arrested, charged, charged with multiple offences, found guilty, and serve jail time.

- Indigenous reserves have an infant mortality rate that is on the level of developing nations.

- Indigenous Canadians have a dropout rate 2.3 times higher than the national average

- A life expectancy over 10 years less than the national average

- A 14% unemployment rate


We are discussing a vulnerable group that our country has attempted to eliminate for centuries, continuing still today. These are groups that are, and I don't mean this figuratively, struggling to survive. Do you think it's appropriate for corporations to appropriate pieces of their art and culture without any financial compensation?

[TheIronMaiden]

Settler society - Invests heavily in eliminating Indigenous languages
Settler society - Outlaws cultural practices such as the sun dance and potlach
Settler society - "Its still cool if we use your art for profit though right?"

[sketchyt]

Originally Posted by Cole436

We are discussing a vulnerable group that our country has attempted to eliminate for centuries, continuing still today. These are groups that are, and I don't mean this figuratively, struggling to survive. Do you think it's appropriate for corporations to appropriate pieces of their art and culture without any financial compensation?

Just wanted to add a couple more stats that blew my mind and never knew about, considering how much the topic of systemic racism is being pushed:

• The suicide rate among First Nations people was 24.3 deaths per 100,000 person-years at risk, which StatsCan says is “roughly understood as number of deaths per persons per year.” That is compared to eight deaths per 100,000 person-years at risk for non-Indigenous people.
• In May 2018, there were 174 drinking water advisories in over 100 First Nations. Some of the advisories date as far back as 1995 – like Shoal Lake 40 First Nation. A single drinking water advisory can mean as many at 5,000 people lack access to safe, clean drinking water.

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by sketchyt

Just wanted to add a couple more stats that blew my mind and never knew about, considering how much the topic of systemic racism is being pushed:

• The suicide rate among First Nations people was 24.3 deaths per 100,000 person-years at risk, which StatsCan says is “roughly understood as number of deaths per persons per year.” That is compared to eight deaths per 100,000 person-years at risk for non-Indigenous people.
• In May 2018, there were 174 drinking water advisories in over 100 First Nations. Some of the advisories date as far back as 1995 – like Shoal Lake 40 First Nation. A single drinking water advisory can mean as many at 5,000 people lack access to safe, clean drinking water.

It's not only upsetting, but magnifies how deep racism goes in our country when this conversation is ignored and dismissed in our national discourse.

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If that becomes our moral consensus, then I expect sports teams and other corporations will simply stop using real-world cultural imagery in their marketing altogether. It’s not clear to me how that will actually make anyone’s lives better.

You are correct. It isn’t clear. It’s actually a exceedingly more complex, and starts to question what is in the commons or public domain of society, especially with respect to intellectual property.

No team can call themselves the “______ Mickey Mice” without having the tentacles Disney down their throat in 2 seconds.

Historically there has been regulation on what is in the private vs. public domain through trademarks, patents, intellectual property law etc.

Mickey Mouse has been in existence for 92 years. Is that a long enough time to make a buck off of creative content?

Disney keeps getting copyright extended to protect their private interests, despite consistently using the public domain to generate content (Pinocchio etc.)

Is this ethical or beneficial to society? Is it coming to an end in 2023?

That’s an interesting question. This question is kicked around in the documentary “Beware of Images”

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Cole436

We are discussing a vulnerable group that our country has attempted to eliminate for centuries, continuing still today. These are groups that are, and I don't mean this figuratively, struggling to survive. Do you think it's appropriate for corporations to appropriate pieces of their art and culture without any financial compensation?

Well that's your opinion to which you are entitled to. Again I will say that artforms aren't owned by anyone. If the art is a cultural slight like the Cleveland Indians logo then I get that but no amount of reason from you will convince me the Canucks are entitled to paying them anything for that logo.

[Erick Estrada]

Dp

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Well that's your opinion to which you are entitled to. Again I will say that artforms aren't owned by anyone. If the art is a cultural slight like the Cleveland Indians logo then I get that but no amount of reason from you will convince me the Canucks are entitled to paying them anything for that logo.

I think that opinion would receive a lot of pushback if you told it to cultures who find their art to be an important part of their identity.

[troutman]

John Fogerty once got sued by his record company for sounding too much like John Fogerty. Intellectual Property is a mystery wrapped in an enigma.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Cole436

We're not discussing Italian or Irish cultural imagery which has allowed immigrants and their decedents to integrate into Canadian society. We're discussing a group of people that historically were:

- Almost driven to extinction due to European action during colonialization, including intentional spread of disease, displacement and cutting off food supply

- From 1876 until the first world war, they were essentially prisoners on the reserves due to the Indian Act restrictions

- Experienced the Residential School System from 1847 until 1996 where our government attempted and almost successfully committed genocide.



Currently this group of people are:

- Systemically targeted and persecuted by the Canadian Criminal Justice System, being comically over represented in Canadian prisons. They represent only 4% of the total Canadian population yet account for 30% of all federal inmates. When compared to white Canadians, they are disproportionally arrested, charged, charged with multiple offences, found guilty, and serve jail time.

- Indigenous reserves have an infant mortality rate that is on the level of developing nations.

- Indigenous Canadians have a dropout rate 2.3 times higher than the national average

- A life expectancy over 10 years less than the national average

- A 14% unemployment rate


We are discussing a vulnerable group that our country has attempted to eliminate for centuries, continuing still today. These are groups that are, and I don't mean this figuratively, struggling to survive. Do you think it's appropriate for corporations to appropriate pieces of their art and culture without any financial compensation?

Originally Posted by sketchyt

Just wanted to add a couple more stats that blew my mind and never knew about, considering how much the topic of systemic racism is being pushed:

• The suicide rate among First Nations people was 24.3 deaths per 100,000 person-years at risk, which StatsCan says is “roughly understood as number of deaths per persons per year.” That is compared to eight deaths per 100,000 person-years at risk for non-Indigenous people.
• In May 2018, there were 174 drinking water advisories in over 100 First Nations. Some of the advisories date as far back as 1995 – like Shoal Lake 40 First Nation. A single drinking water advisory can mean as many at 5,000 people lack access to safe, clean drinking water.

I acknowledge all these stats, I agree that there is systemic racism against indigenous people, and I still don't think that it should obligate anyone to pay something like a licensing fee or a tax to use a broad artistic style. Nobody should own styles of art any more than anyone owns a language or a genre. These are things that thrive or die depending on how many people use them. Their broad use should be embraced and their death is the least desirable outcome for anyone who cares about them.

Ideas like forcing the Canucks to pay compensation may come from a place of good intent (including but not limited to hatred of the Canucks), but I think they also diminish discussion of more substantial issues such as decolonization. Expressions of injustice made on behalf of indigenous people in relation to appropriation also often strike me as subtle propagation of the myth of the noble savage and seem maybe a bit infantilizing of indigenous people.